structure of the education system -...

1 3 1I I E P • I N T E R N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R E D U C A T I O N A L P L A N N I N G

MAIN OBJECTIVES

• To assess existing management structures and their responsiveness to emergency needs. If necessary, to establish interim management structures and processes until more permanent arrangements can be made.

• To provide a coherent and sufficiently resourced system of quality instruction and learning opportunities to all children and youth.

STRUCTURE OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES

The provision and management of education is a primary responsibility of government, or other authorities that are temporarily performing governmental functions. Ef fect ive ma nagement requires sufficient resources and personnel, training,

5.6Chapter

• To ensure that learners and teachers are provided with proper management support, that is, adequate levels of material resources and instructional conditions conducive to effective learning on a stable and ongoing basis.


Guidebook for planning education in emergencies and reconstruction

accountability and transparency, equity and sustainability. Depending on the specifics of the emergency, management may have to be localized, or broadened, to include non-government actors to a much greater extent than in more stable situations. Thus, where the governing authority has limited legitimacy or capacity, key functions may be managed by other entities. When multiple and new actors fill service gaps, however, much more coordination is needed. These new actors should work in close consultation with national and local authorities, so far as possible. In addition, management functions should be progressively (re)turned to legitimate national and local authorities to the extent possible and as capacity is developed.

The demands on education in emergencies are greater than in non-emergency contexts, with many arrangements having to be developed in emergencies even as normal management structures are likely weakened. Thus, for example, in addition to formal instruction in literacy, numeracy and more advanced subject matters, children and youth are likely to need psycho-social interventions, life skills and, in some cases, vocational skills. Children and youth in emergencies are also less likely to be able to learn in conventional instructional settings with conventional approaches and timetables; they may need more student-centred instructional approaches, which in turn require more training for teachers. In the absence of a powerful authority to ensure compliance, the participation of affected populations/beneficiaries in the design and/or provision of management structures is likely to be an important factor in the success or failure of implementation.

Civil conflict is particularly likely to disrupt education in a heavily centralized system, as conflict-affected areas are likely to be cut off from central management and support. Resumption of normal management operations is likely to be complicated by any civil


Chapter 5.6: Structure of the education system

conflict. In such a context, even decisions of a technical nature are easily politicized, for social consensus has broken down.

Civil conf lict is also likely to divert resources and political attention away from education toward resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, the near universal importance attached to education means that reconstruction of education can serve as a means for parties in conflict to work together. Natural disasters are likely to disrupt the normal governance structure in the areas affected. Resumption of normal management is not ordinarily as complicated as in civil conflicts, and is likely to be a more straightforward matter of simply rebuilding.

In the heat of an acute emergency, temporary, ad hoc, localized management by the best available agencies may be the best that can be done. In displacement situations, educational activities are likely to begin less formally, with recreational/psychosocial and simple educational activities. With greater stability, more structured educational activities are possible. Families want the interrupted school year completed as soon as possible.

Temporary management structures may become semi-permanent in protracted emergencies. Longer-range issues such as funding and sustainability, legitimacy, quality, capacity, institutionalization, relevance and credentials, as well as provision of higher levels of education then come to the fore.

The ongoing nature of chronic emergencies requires that interim structures be established to resume as near to normal educational conditions as possible, under conditions understood to be temporary. Interim arrangements (both at national as well as local levels) should be planned on the basis of later integration into larger or permanent education authority structures.

Re-integration of returnees into a structure adversely affected by conflict or disaster is difficult and additional resources may



be needed, including the support of civil society and external agencies.

In reconstituting educational structures, there will be a tendency to rebuild previous structures rather than to refashion structures according to current or future needs. Yet, in many places, normal management structures are not sufficiently effective, efficient, transparent or equitable. In fact, inequity in educational provision, as well as aspects of education content, may have contributed to conflict (Smith and Vaux, 2002; Bush and Saltarelli, 2000). An emergency may therefore provide an opportunity to restructure education in a way that better meets system goals (Pigozzi, 1999).

Traditionally, planning begins at the national or system level where system goals are defined. It then moves progressively lower in the hierarchy to local levels, where the steps necessary for the local unit to contribute to system goals are specified. In pedagogical terms, a strong argument can be made for reversing that order. In such a view, the effectiveness of the structure of an educational system would be evaluated by the extent to which it supports classroom instruction. From this perspective, structures that do not foster effective classroom instruction should be eliminated or reorganized.

The starting point for design of education system structures is thus the classroom, followed by structures that provide direct support of the classroom through the traditional hierarchy. Such an approach may be particularly effective in planning educational responses in emergency contexts, where national or systemic structures may be inoperable, or unable to reach learners and teachers most directly affected by emergency.

Educational planners may find it useful to begin the work of structuring an education ministry after a conflict with a ‘functional analysis’ of the system, also known as a ‘management audit’. IIEP



has published an excellent manual to help with that process (Sack and Saïdi, 1997).

Decentralization. This is often suggested as a strategy for restructuring, but this strategy is more usefully understood when considered in terms of desirable criteria. When considering decentralization, it is useful to determine which functions should be located where in the system for maximum benefit, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, transparency and empowerment, for example. In principle, a function should be located at the level that has the information and capacity needed to carry out the function and is closest to the principal activity of the sector (i.e. classroom instruction).

STRUCTURE OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: DEFINITIONS

‘Decentralization’, ‘community support of schools’, and ‘local control’ are all names given to the transfer of the authority (and responsibility) for the financing or governance of schools to a sub-national agency. Such transfer can take the form of: (a) deconcentration; (b) delegation; (c) devolution; and (d) privatization. The degree of decentralization or a nation’s place on the continuum from extreme centralization to extreme localization (privatization) is indicated by which authority has been transferred, to whom, and to whom the decision-makers are responsible.

‘Deconcentration’ is the transfer of authority to lower levels of governance within the central government, for example, regional ministry of education offices. This model gives specific duties and responsibilities to its authorities at decentralized levels, all the while maintaining its overall authority at a centralized level.

‘Devolution’ is the transfer of authority to a sub-national unit of government. Local levels of government have significant decision-making autonomy based on policies established at a central level.

Sources: Kemmerer (1994); Sullivan-Owomoyela (2004: 5)



The emerging education system in southern Sudan illustrates some of these principles:

COMMISSIONER

Planning Department

Higher Education

Department

General Education

Department

Gender and Social

Change Department

Quality Promotion

and Innovation Department

Administration and FinanceDepartment

UNITS

Education Planning and Monitoring

• Data and Statistics

• Policy Analysis and Support

Physical Planning

Development Partners

UNITS

Vocational, Technical, Science and Business Education

Tertiary Institutions

UNITS

Early Childhood Development

Primary Education

Secondary Education

Alternative Education

Distance Education

Other Schools

UNITS

Gender Equality

Life Skills

• HIV/AIDS• Environment• Landmine

Awareness• Nutrition

Civic and Peace Education

Special Needs

UNITS

Standards

Human Resource Development

• RTTIs• Teacher

Training• Management

Training• Scholarships• Curriculum

Assessment• Layout and

Production

National Languages Examinations Research

UNITS

Financial Management

General and Personnel Administration

Efficiency, Quality, and Financial Compliance Audit

Procurement and Distribution

SOUTHERN SUDAN SECRETARIAT OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION CHART

Please note: Italicized text denotes the proposed placement for a unit or office

DIRECTOR-GENERAL



SOUTHERN SUDAN: SECRETARIAT OF EDUCATION

STRUCTURE, STRENGTHS AND INNOVATIONS

The Secretariat of Education (SoE) organigram suggests a strong guiding central structure that supports autonomy at the regional, county, and payam levels to: 1) set the education agenda and define plans and programme, 2) administer and manage human resources and 3) plan financial expenditures in the near future. By organizing the central levels in this manner, the SoE is able to use its central level structure to foster autonomy of education programming at the most important level – the community.

In southern Sudan, the ‘STAR Education and Economic Rehabilitation Program’ focuses on assisting populations to transfer from ‘relief to development’ programming that targets capacity building of local authorities (county development committees) and civil society. The focus of the programme is to strengthen decentralized local authorities to have the capacity to undertake school rehabilitation, promote increased community involvement, and enhance gender equality (e.g., recruiting of female teachers) in the education system. Concretely, the Secretariat of Education creates guidance and approval for school selection and develops the policy framework. It is then the responsibility of school management committees to help construct schools, mobilize resources and make financial and administrative decisions for the school.

The proposed SoE structure in Sudan follows a systemic model that contains both deconcentrated and devolved elements to ensure the utmost flexibility in responding to society’s needs at the most important level – the community. The proposed model also allows for increased systemic devolution over time as systems capacity and infrastructure are gradually put in place.

Sources: Sullivan-Owomoyela (2003: 5); Sullivan-Owomoyela (2004: 4-5)



Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the education system in an emergency-affected area is a major undertaking. The World Bank (2005: 42-45) puts forth the following measures to be considered when reconstructing an educational system.

Early policy and system reform preparation. This may include technical work on Education Management Information Systems (EMIS), a review and diagnosis of current educational legislation and regulations, or the analysis of resources.

Role of political leadership. Leaders should provide clearly defined objectives for education, encourage educational actors to work towards them, and thus push the reform forward.

Consolidation of authority. This may include rationalizing and modernizing ministries of education as well as implementing capacity-building programmes for central and district education offices. In this way, as decentralization progresses officials will have the capacities needed to assume their new responsibilities.

Societal consensus building. This may involve national consultations or campaigns.

Balanced approach to reform. “System reform requires a careful balance of building on the foundations of the previous system without reproducing the highly centralized control and inefficiencies typical of the past” (World Bank, 2005: 44).

Strengthening schools and community linkages. Particularly important when the authority of the government is being consolidated, this may include programmes promoting community involvement, or the use of local level incentives.

•

•

•

•

•

•



SUGGESTED STRATEGIES

Summary of suggested strategies

Structure of the education system

1. Assess the impact of the emergency on educational management in crisis-affected areas

2. Based on the assessment, make any needed modifications to existing management structures or establish new ones.

3. Establish and clarify relationships with external bodies or agencies.

4. Manage and monitor effective reintegration of returnees.

5. Develop a structure to support the education system in the post-emergency situation.



Guidance notes

1. Assess the impact of the emergency on educational management in crisis-affected areas

Identify and assess existing management structures and education providers.

At the macro level of the educational system, what management structures are in place? What intermediate management structures are functioning at regional, district and sub-district levels?What local management structures are being used? Are community education committees (CECs) operating? (See also the Guidebook, Chapter 5.5, ‘Community participation’.)What other agencies or bodies, if any, are involved in providing and managing education (understood broadly to include a range of formal and non-formal activities) in the areas affected by the emergency?

Assess how well the system is functioning in terms of the core functions of an education support structure.

Curriculum – overall coordination and quality, provision of textbooks, teachers’ guides, other instructional aids, etc. (See the Guidebook, Chapter 4.1, ‘Curriculum content and review processes’.)Personnel – hiring, deployment of teachers, pre-service and in-service training, instruction support (as opposed to traditional inspection), on-time provision of salaries, reasonable terms of service, local administrators, etc. (See the Guidebook, Chapter 3.1, ‘Identification, selection and recruitment of teachers and education workers’, and Chapter 3.4, ‘Teacher training: teaching and learning methods’.) Finance – suff iciency, equity, transparency and

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



accountability, sustainability. (See the Guidebook, Chapter 5.8, ‘Budget and financial management’.)Oversight in terms of system goals – quality, equity, sustainability, relevance, learning and other outcomes, other values.Access – ensuring access to all at basic levels; ensuring fair access at higher levels; equity, especially in terms of gender and among disadvantaged groups. (See the Guidebook, Chapter 2.1, ‘Rural populations’, Chapter 2.2, ‘Gender’, and Chapter 2.11, ‘Post-primary education’.)Monitoring, evaluation and utilization of such information to improve the education system – at student, school, office, and system levels. (See the Guidebook, Chapter 5.1, ‘Assessment of needs and resources’.)

Analyse management structures and functions, in terms of effectiveness.

Consider developing a matrix of levels of the system and other actors in education along one axis, with effectiveness questions (by education management function), across the other. In this way, the management of the system can be visualized. (See the sample management matrix in the ‘Tools and resources’ section of this chapter for an example.)What problems does the analysis of management structures compared to effectiveness reveal? - What funct ions or levels/agencies need

strengthening? - What functions need coordination? - Whose roles and responsibilities are unclear? - Are there any areas of duplication and overlap? - What gaps exist? - Are existing structures able to respond quickly and

flexibly to the needs of an emergency, or is there a need to create an additional emergency response structure?

•

•

•

•

•

•



- How vulnerable are different functions to further disruption, e.g. renewed fighting?

2. Based on the assessment, make any needed modifications to existing management structures, or establish new ones.

Consider management structures that will best respond to immediate needs as well as build capacity for the future.

What functional-structural areas need revision? What are the priorities among these areas?Which problems, if any, are best addressed by creation of new or revision of existing management structures? Such structures would vary, depending on the needs of the system and the levels involved, but might include CECs at local levels, oversight offices at district levels, coordinating bodies at national levels, donor liaison officers within central educational authorities, etc. What resources are required and available to create/revise management structures?How, in the process of restructuring, can participation of beneficiaries and the broader civil society be encouraged in decision-making and provision of educational services? - How can fair representation of marginalized and

traditionally under-represented groups be ensured?What opportunities does restructuring provide to improve the functioning of the system? Is this, for example, an opportunity to improve accountability or gender parity, for example?What steps can be taken to minimize disruption to the education system in case of future emergency or to prepare for possible crises?- Will the envisioned structure be able to respond to

emergency needs, or will a more responsive and flexible unit/capacity need to be created?

•

•••

•

•

•

•



Ensure responsiveness to emergency needs.How can the system, particularly at macro levels, be as flexible as possible to meet new needs without compromising accountability? For example, how can a system deploy funds rapidly to areas affected by emergency, and ensure that such funds are used for the intended purpose, without the standard cumbersome system of oversight?At the micro level, have changes in teaching methods or the content of materials been made to prepare students and their families and communities for actual conditions they are likely to face, or likely future emergency conditions? For example, has the system introduced, where appropriate, a mine awareness programme? Is the system prepared to introduce such programmes rapidly in response to emergency needs?Are backup copies of important documents (records, teaching materials and aids) kept in a secure location in case of damage to the education ministry or (in the case of administrative records) regional offices?

Establish new/interim/local management structures. (See also the Guidebook, Chapter 5.5, ‘Community participation’ for a discussion of the role of CECs.)

What roles should CECs play, consultative or decision-making as well? At what level(s) of the system?Who should serve on the CECs (e.g. parents, teachers, ministry officials, leaders of important social groups, students, NGO leaders, etc.) in order to adequately represent all important actors and stakeholders, yet yield a manageable group?How can members be chosen in a legitimate way that ensures adequate representation on the part of all? Have roles and responsibilities of different groups been clearly specified? Do all important actors understand their roles and responsibilities?

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



What training and technical assistance is needed for all key actors to be able to carry out their functions? What resources are needed for the different groups to do their work?

3. Establish and clarify relationships with external bodies or agencies.

How do the management structures established in the acute phase – such as management structures of schools run by NGOs or separate government structures set up to respond to the emergency – interact with other, more permanent or pre-existing organizational and sectoral entities? Are there any particular problems or constraints? How can these best be addressed?Does the way donors structure their systems affect education management structures? Has this affected the efficiency of the management process? For example, do donor reporting requirements oblige educational authorities to spend substantially more resources gathering and processing data for the donor than needed to manage their own system?

4. Manage and monitor effective reintegration of returnees.

Do any additional structures need to be established to support returnees in their reintegration?Do existing structures need additional capacity or resources? Which agencies or bodies are best placed to assist most effectively? Where do these agencies/bodies fit within the existing structure?What mechanisms exist (or must be created) to ensure that reintegration takes place as planned?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



5. Develop a structure to support the education system in the post-emergency situation.

(De)centralize system structures appropriately.What decentralization has taken place during the emergency? In what ways has the original structure changed to accommodate the decentralization process? What is the overall plan for decentralization? - What is the intended location of the different functions

of the education system? - What functions need to be decentralized for the system

to work better, for example, provision or distribution of textbooks, teacher posting, school construction and maintenance, financial accounting, supervision, etc.?

- Which functions need to be centralized?How will transfer of responsibility take place? - Will those responsible for new functions be given

the authority, responsibility, resources, and training necessary to carry out their new duties?

- Is the decentralization plan realistic? - Has the plan been communicated clearly to all

concerned: civil servants, teachers, communities, donors, NGOs?

How effective has the decentralization been in terms of delivery to the beneficiaries – that is the learners? For example, has a financial decentralization process aimed at ensuring that teachers’ salaries are paid on time been effective? What mechanisms are in place to monitor the efficacy of the decentralization process, and to make corrections if necessary?

Develop a structure to support the education system over the longer term.

Are the functions now in place effectively located vis-à-vis centralization or decentralization?

••

•

•

•

•

•

•



How is the effectiveness of management structure monitored? Have gender equity and fair representation of minority groups been achieved within management structures? If not, how might this be addressed most effectively? Are periodic reviews of the system structure and its efficacy part of the ongoing strategic planning process?

Ensure accountability.Does the structure of the system ensure accountability, but remain responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries?What systems are in place to monitor accountability of the various functionaries at each level? What follow-up measures are needed to ensure accountability?

TOOLS AND RESOURCES

1. Sample management matrix

Planners may f ind it useful to develop a matrix, perhaps adapting the following example, as a basis for understanding the effectiveness of the different functions of educational management. The example considers levels of the system and other groups involved in education along the vertical axis, and a series of questions as to responsibility and effectiveness across the top. Similar matrices might be developed for other functions of educational management, such as personnel; teacher supervision and instructional support; finance; oversight of system goals; access; monitoring and evaluation.

•

•

•

••

•

•



FUN

CTI

ON

: C

UR

RIC

ULU

M

RES

PON

SIB

ILIT

Y A

ND

EF

FEC

TIV

ENES

S

LEV

EL O

F SY

STEM

Who

is r

esp

ons

ible

?

For

wha

t?W

ho e

lse

is in

volv

ed?

H

ow

?H

ow

eff

ectiv

ely

is it

fu

nctio

ning

?W

hat

is

the

pro

ble

m?

Lack

of

clar

ity o

f ta

sk

and

ro

le?

Gap

s?

Dup

licat

ion?

La

ck o

f co

ord

inat

ion?

La

ck o

f kn

ow

-ho

w?

Lack

of

reso

urce

s?

Insu

ffici

ent

acco

unta

bili

ty?

Com

men

t

Ce

ntr

al e

du

cati

on

al

auth

ori

tie

s •

Ove

rall

coor

dina

tion

an

d qu

alit

y •

Pro

visi

on o

f tex

tboo

ks,

teac

hers

gui

des,

oth

er

inst

ruct

iona

l aid

s

• H

igh

qual

ity

• U

neve

n co

vera

ge o

f sc

hool

s (so

me

scho

ols

have

too

man

y te

xtbo

oks,

ot

hers

too

few

)

• L

ack

of ti

mel

y ac

cura

te

data

on

num

bers

of

child

ren,

num

bers

of

text

book

s nee

ded

• D

ata

colle

ctio

n sy

stem

ne

eds w

ork

Re

gio

nal

ed

uca

tio

nal

au

tho

riti

es

• D

istr

ibut

ion

in

appr

opri

ate

num

bers

to

dist

rict

s

Dis

tric

t e

du

cati

on

al

auth

ori

tie

s•

Dis

trib

utio

n in

ap

prop

riat

e nu

mbe

rs to

sc

hool

s

• D

istr

icts

rely

on

scho

ols

for d

ata

• N

o ca

paci

ty to

che

ck

• W

ill n

eed

to tr

ain

scho

ol

staf

f

Sch

oo

l e

du

cati

on

al

auth

ori

tie

s •

Dis

trib

utio

n to

stud

ents

• Sc

hool

s lac

k gu

idel

ines

on

dat

a co

llect

ion

vis-

à-vi

s tex

tboo

ks

• N

eed

trai

ning

Co

mm

un

ity

Inte

rnat

ion

al f

un

din

g

age

nci

es

• W

orld

Ban

k lo

an

supp

orts

cur

ricu

lum

re

visi

on

NG

Os

• A

dvoc

acy

for s

peci

al

curr

icul

a –

life

skill

s,

peac

e ed

, HIV

/AID

S

Oth

ers



Other sectors: Health, Water, Community, Services etc.

UNHCR Sub Office Ngara Education Co-ordinator

Education Programme Management Unit (UNESCO, UNICEF & GTZ Technical Advisors)

Logistics & Technical Support Unit: Christian Outreach

Training and Development Unit (UNESCO, UNICEF & GTZ)

Education Co-ordination Committee (NGOs)

Benaco Camp School management: Disaster Relief Agency

Lumasi Camp School management: Norwegian People’s Aid

Site III Camp School management: Christian Outreach

Karagwe Camps School Management: Concern

2. Sample organization charts of education systems

Organization chart for Kagera region: Education in Emergencies Programme for Rwandan Refugee Children

This is the first organization chart of the educational structure used in the Rwandan refugee camps in the Kagera region of Tanzania in 1994. It was a very top-down structure that gave little chance for refugee participation or decision-making (note that they are not even represented in the diagram). The second organization chart below indicates the change in thinking towards a more participatory approach where decision-making has been decentralized, giving much more authority to the refugees.

Source: Bird (2003: 66)



Technical Advisors Committee

UNHCRGovernment of Tanzania

Governments of Rwanda and Burundi

EDUCATION COORDINATION COMMITTEE: UNHCR + UNESCO + UNICEF + PDO + 1 camp representative (school committee member) + 1 Govt representative

Camp Education Committee: NGO + PDO + Headmasters + head of psychosocial teachers + School Committee representative (parent) + community leaders representative

School Committee No.1:

Headmasters, teachers, psychosocial teacher, parents, leader, pupils


…


…

Organization chart of revised education management structure, Ngara



REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Bird, L. 2003. Surviving school: education for refugee children from Rwanda 1994-1996. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Bush, K.D.; Saltarelli, D. 2000. The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: towards a peacebuilding education for children. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre; UNICEF.

INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2003a. INEE good practice guide: education structures & management – compensation and payment of educational staff. Retrieved 4 September 2009 from www.ineesite.org/toolkit/docs/doc_1_Compensation_and_Payment_of_Educational_Staff.pdf

INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2003b. Good practice guides for emergency education: community education committees. Retrieved 29 July 2009 from www.ineesite.org/uploads/documents/store/doc_1_Community_Education_Committees.pdf

Kemmerer, F. 1994. ‘Decentralization of schooling in developing nations.’ In: The International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 1412-1416.

Pigozzi, M.J. 1999. Education in emergencies and for reconstruction: a developmental approach. New York: UNICEF.

Sack, R.; Saïdi, M., 1997. Functional analysis (management audits) of the organization of ministries of education. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO. Retrieved 29 July 2009 from http://unesdoc .unesco.org/images/0010/001085/108562eb.pdf

Smith, A; Vaux, T. 2002. Education, conflict and international development. London: Department for International Development.

http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/Rwanda_ss.pdf

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/insight4.pdf

http://www.ineesite.org/toolkit/docs/doc_1_Compensation_and_Payment_of_Educational_Staff.pdf

www.ineesite.org/uploads/documents/store/doc_1_Community_Education_Committees.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001085/108562eb.pdf

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/edconflictdev.pdf



Sullivan-Owomoyela, J. 2003. Education programming in crisis and transitional settings: conflict-sensitive education programming. EQUIP1/CARE USA.

Sullivan-Owomoyela, J. 2004. Find the right balance: guiding principles for decentralization. Sudan Basic Education Program.

World Bank. 2005. Reshaping the future: education and postconflict reconstruction. Washington, DC: World Bank.